ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FDA Withdraws Approval For ADHD Drug Cylert---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for Cylert, a drug developed by Abbott Laboratories to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), due to links with liver problems, including death, agency officials said, the Associated Press reports.

In a statement, the FDA said it received 13 reports of liver failure resulting in transplant or death among people who took the drug, which has been available for 30 years. There are additional reports of less serious problems. Although that is a small number, it is well above what the normal rate of such problems among the general population, the FDA said in the statement.

The move means drug manufacturers will no longer produce generic versions of pemoline (Cylert). The Company discontinued the drug, which acts as a stimulant to the central nervous system, earlier this year, but generic versions have remained available.

FDA is not recalling the drug, instead allowing pharmacies to sell their remaining stock as doctors still using it switch patients to alternative treatments, the agency said in a statement. "FDA has concluded that the risk of liver failure with this drug outweighs the potential benefits," the agency statement says, noting that alternative treatments for ADD have come on the market since pemoline was introduced.

The lack of a recall drew fire from the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "It is reckless and insensitive to the health and lives of children and adults using this drug for the FDA and the involved drug companies to fail to institute an immediate recall of these dangerous products," Drs. Sidney Wolfe and Peter Lurie, who lead the organization's Health Research Group, in a letter to the FDA, told the Associated Press.

Rupert Ruppert, a Franklin attorney and one of four attorneys representing an as-yet undiscovered number of potential plaintiffs, said of the improper calculations, "It's potentially an expensive mistake."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Cincinnati, Ohio argues that the Company wrongly calculated benefits due to spouses of deceased workers. Furthermore, the suit alleges that the Company's benefits plan gives surviving spouses 50 percent of the monthly base pension their spouses received before their deaths, minus half of the surviving spouses' Social Security widows or widowers benefits. The suit also states that the Company subtracts a surviving spouse's Social Security lifetime earnings benefits, in addition to widows or widowers benefits.

According to the suit, the Company's benefits administrator told North Heinkel Road resident Judith Patrick, whose husband Bing Patrick died in October 2001, that she would receive a monthly surviving spouse benefit of no less than $140 - $556.56 minus half of her Social Security widow's benefit. The suit recounts that after receiving information from the Social Security Administration, AK then cut Mrs. Patrick's benefit by "50 percent of her total Social Security benefit, including the Social Security benefit she was receiving based on her own earnings record." It goes on to state, "AK Steel thus computed Mrs. Patrick's survivor spouse benefit to be -$16.96, but provided Mrs. Patrick with the minimum benefit of $140 under the plan." Mrs. Patrick's attorneys told The Middletown Journal that she should be paid $373 a month.

Mr. Ruppert told The Middletown Journal that he doesn't know if the Company's benefit administrators are misreading their plan in using a survivor's "total" Social Security benefits in calculations. He did point out, "They're reading it way differently than we're doing, that's for sure."

In addition, Mr. Ruppert also told The Middletown Journal the discovery process could take several months, estimating that there could be 500 to 3,000 "similarly situated" plaintiffs. The suit states that plaintiffs are seeking for the recovery of benefits, a clarification of their rights to future benefits and injunctive relief and restitution.

The suit is styled, "Patrick et al. v. AK Steel Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00681-MHW-TSB," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge Michael H. Watson, with referral to Judge Timothy S. Black. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

The Company, the world's largest direct seller of beauty products, has been struggling with weak sales and lower earnings. One of the class action complaints was filed on behalf of individuals whose retirement funds were handled by the Avon Personal Savings Account Plan. A similar suit was filed earlier this year on behalf of other Avon employees, beneficiaries and associates who had retirement and savings accounts in company plans.

Meanwhile, the New York-based firm announced the retirement of its Chief Financial Officer and said it had hired Gillette's former CFO to replace him. Some analysts say Avon, whose brands include Anew and Skin-So-Soft, is overdue for a reorganization. It plans to outline its long-term strategy at a meeting with analysts on November 15, consumeraffairs.com reports.

CAISSE DE DEPOT: Denies Charges in Northern Trust Investor Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The Caisse de d,p"t et placement du Qu,bec (the "Caisse") said the amended motion for authorization to institute a class action suit, seeking a judgment of $130 million against it and all the other defendants by holding them responsible for all the potential losses incurred by investors in the various Evolution Funds and Norbourg Funds, against it is unfounded.

Shefford resident Jocelyn Desrochers, who invested $270,235 in now-frozen Groupe Norbourg mutual funds, is seeking to file a class action against Northern Trust, the Toronto-based company responsible for the safekeeping of Norbourg assets, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 6,2005) states. Mr. Desrochers, who estimates at $135,117 his potential losses from financial irregularities in the Norbourg family of funds, alleges that Northern Trust, as custodian, wrongfully permitted $5.1 million to be diverted to the account of a company called Norbourg International days before provincial regulators shut down Groupe Norbourg on August 24.

Mr. Desrochers claims that Northern Trust should have had measures in place to flag inappropriate transfers and designated personnel to block them. He asserts that Northern Trust's ineffectiveness led to a significant reduction in the value of the mutual fund units held by investors.

In a press statement, the Company said "There are no grounds for this motion in fact or in law. There are no facts to justify the motion. There is no reason that the Caisse's depositors can be obliged indirectly to assume the losses of the unitholders of the Evolution Funds."

The Company further said, "It is important to note that the Caisse was never the manager of the Evolution Funds. The funds were managed by Evolution Funds Inc., a company owned by Teraxis Capital. It was Teraxis Capital that sold Evolution Funds Inc. The Caisse is one of the investors in Teraxis Capital, with an 80% interest. No fact brought to the attention of the Caisse, directly or indirectly, can connect the Caisse, in fact or in law, with any responsibility for the investments held by the unitholders . None of the known facts that have emerged from the investigation by the Autorit, des march,s financiers connects the Caisse in any manner whatsoever to the presumed losses of investors in the Evolution Funds or the Norbourg Funds.

According to the facts brought to the Caisse's attention, Teraxis Capital Inc. apparently followed an orderly sales process and carried out the normal diligence required in such circumstances. The Evolution Funds unitholders received the notice required under the relevant regulation when there is a change in management control, in order to enable them to redeem the units they held if they so desired. Evolution Funds Inc. was apparently sold by Teraxis Capital Inc. for a cash payment of about $4 million and assumption of about $2 million of debts.

The Caisse has given its attorneys a mandate to examine the allegations made in the motion as well as the statements made publicly to determine whether it can seek a remedy regarding the comments made in this matter.

CALIFORNIA: Students With Diabetes File Suit V. Education Bodies----------------------------------------------------------------Four elementary school-age students, along with the American Diabetes Association, filed an unprecedented civil rights complaint today in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking class action relief against the California Superintendent of Public Schools, the California Department of Education, members of the California Board of Education, the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, the Fremont Unified School District, and their Superintendents and Boards of Trustees. The suit asks the Court to compel public school officials to comply with federal law by providing the assistance that California students with diabetes require to manage their diabetes during the school day.

The complaint alleges that the state and the local districts violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable federal regulations in their failure to ensure the health and safety of public school students with diabetes in Kindergarten through 12th Grade by providing insulin administration, blood glucose monitoring, proper care in emergency situations, and other appropriate diabetes care.

The plaintiffs are represented pro bono by a team of attorneys in the Oakland and San Francisco offices of Reed Smith LLP, as well as by attorneys with the Berkeley-based Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. (DREDF). Reed Smith attorneys participating include James M. Wood, Kenneth J. Philpot, Michael F. McCabe, Kurtis J. Kearl, Lisa C. Hamasaki, Tita Bell and Kendra Jue. DREDF attorneys include Arlene Mayerson and Larisa Cummings.

"Students with type 1 diabetes, and some students with type 2 diabetes, require insulin to survive," said Mr. Wood. "Without access to regular and ongoing blood glucose testing and insulin administration during the school day, these youngsters are at risk of serious and possibly fatal health complications. We intend to ensure that schools provide the services that are necessary to protect these children's health and well-being. The federal government is committed to the idea that no child will be left behind in public schools. This lawsuit will ensure that no child is locked out because schools will not provide fundamental assurances that children with diabetes will be safe in school."

"The California Department of Education, the San Ramon Valley and Fremont districts and many other districts across the state refuse to assign any school personnel to assist students with the injection of insulin as prescribed by the students' doctors, even though school personnel can be trained to do so and are regularly trained and assigned these tasks in some schools," explained DREDF`s Ms. Cummings.

DREDF has been representing children with diabetes in California and across the nation for years. As DREDF attorney Arlene Mayerson explained, "After several attempts to obtain relief from the California Department of Education failed, DREDF had no choice but to file a lawsuit. It is unacceptable and illegal for the districts and the CDE to ignore their moral and legal responsibilities to these children."

The complaint asks the Court to require the California Department of Education and the school districts to establish policy ensuring that districts will provide a sufficient number of adequately trained school personnel to check students' blood glucose levels, monitor students for symptoms of high and low blood glucose, and assist with administering insulin or glucagon or other treatment the children require.

"Diabetes must be managed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A student with diabetes cannot take a break from diabetes when he or she boards the school bus in the morning." said L. Hunter Limbaugh, the Chair of the National Advocacy Committee at the American Diabetes Association and a parent of a daughter who has diabetes. "It's vital that all students with diabetes in California and throughout the nation know they will be in a medically safe environment that affords them the same educational opportunities as other students. As is very clear from the stories of the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, many students with diabetes in California are not safe at school. They do not have access to the basic tools to manage their diabetes. It is because this situation is intolerable for students and their families that the American Diabetes Association has joined this lawsuit."

CANADA: Suit Over Legionnaires' Disease Seeks $600M in Damages--------------------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit seeking $600 million in damages was launched on behalf of a man who became ill following the deadly outbreak of legionnaire's disease in an East Toronto nursing home, The CTV.ca News reports.

According to court papers, Gerald Glover, 58, was infected with legionnaire's disease earlier this month during the outbreak at the Seven Oaks Home for the Aged in Scarborough. His family is baffled because Mr. Glover lives in a building across the parking lot from the home, and they say he hasn't even been in Seven Oaks. Mr. Glover allegedly collapsed on October 5 and was admitted to hospital with kidney failure, pneumonia and temporary loss of memory and hearing.

Mr. Glover's daughter, Cheryl Glover, told CTV.ca News that the suit is aimed at addressing her family's suffering. She said, "It's never been about the money. We've been to the hospital and seen what they go through . my dad has been hooked up to IVs in his arms and a huge one in his neck because of kidney failure, his stomach is all bruised up from being a pin cushion, and we still have no answers."

The Glover family's lawyer, Glyn Hotz, who contends that his client and other residents should have been better protected, told CTV.ca News that he has received phone calls from others interested in joining the class action suit. He told CTV.ca News, "Toronto Public Health should have taken measures to protect people in the home. They should have had preventative antibiotics and maybe even have moved people. They certainly should have shut the ventilation off, and instead they warned nobody."

Toronto health officials said droplets of legionnaires' bacteria were distributed into the air by the cooling system on the roof of the Seven Oaks Home and then sucked into the ventilation system's air intake. Upon making the disease's discovery, they ordered the cooling tower shut down on October 6. Currently, the outbreak has killed 21 people, the latest victim being an 89-year-old woman who died this week. In all there have been 127 cases of legionnaires' disease, including 67 residents, 30 staff and 26 visitors.

Mr. Glover is one of four people who live or work in close proximity to Seven Oaks Home for the Aged who have also contracted the disease, likely infected by droplets that escaped the building through the cooling tower, according to court papers.

According to the Company, the bike racks do not have sufficient hardware to support its weight on the wall. This can cause the bike rack to unexpectedly fall, hitting a nearby consumer. There has been one report of a bike rack falling. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Picasso bike racks with a collapsible shelf. The bike rack can be mounted on the wall and has slots to support two bicycles. The metal rack has the Delta logo and name printed on the front of the rack. Manufactured in China and Taiwan, the bike racks were sold at LL Bean, Bike Nashbar and independent bike shops nationwide from January 2002 through September 2005 for about $40.

GUIDANT CORPORATION: Stock Sales by Insiders Triggered Lawsuits--------------------------------------------------------------- In recent months, top Guidant Corporation insiders unloaded more than $100 million in company stock, a move that will blunt the financial impact they'll feel if the Indianapolis Company and Johnson & Johnson renegotiate the terms of their $25.4 billion merger, The Indianapolis Business Journal reports.

Besides softening the financial blow, the recent sales also has the negative effect of becoming the primary reason for class action attorneys to file several lawsuits this summer charging insiders concealed from investors defects in the company's heart devices.

One such class action suit that was filed in federal court in Indianapolis in June charges that by not promptly disclosing defects publicly, six executives were able to sell $39 million in stock at inflated prices.

Since then, sales have continued with four insiders, namely: Chairman Jim Cornelius, CEO Ronald Dollens, Chief Financial Officer Keith Brauer and director J.B. King, reaping more than $91 million from stock sales since December 15, the date New Jersey-based J&J agreed to buy Guidant for $76 a share. Many of the insider sales are at $68 or more, substantially above the current price. The stock plunged 11 percent October 18, the day a J&J executive cast doubt on the deal, fueling speculation it would seek a lower price. Guidant shares were trading on October 20 at $63.68.

Trading records show the executives cashed in many of the shares immediately after exercising stock options to buy them, a common practice among U.S. executives. Some of the proceeds from the sales typically go toward paying capital gains taxes on profit.

Henry Price, an Indianapolis class action attorney who is not involved in Guidant litigation, told The Indianapolis Business Journal that it's curious so many insiders decided to sell shares this year for less than they would have received had they just waited for the deal to close. He pointed out, "That is a fact that, if left unexplained, leads to a reasonable inference that the executives who sold the stock did it on the basis of negative inside information."

HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Ex-Caesars CEO Sues Over Stock Options--------------------------------------------------------------The former chief executive of Caesars Entertainment initiated a class action lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that the world's largest gambling company owes him and potentially hundreds of other former Caesars' employees millions of dollars for their stock options, The Newark Star Ledger reports.

In the suit, Wally Barr claims that Harrah's, which bought Caesars last summer in a $9 billion deal, refused to pay employees and executives who held options to purchase Caesars' stock at the price they were entitled to. The suit accuses Harrah's with breach of contract and seeks unspecified compensatory damages as well as reimbursement for litigation costs. The case, which was filed on October 21, 2005, has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas.

Mr. Barr stated in the suit that Caesars option holders covered by a 1998 incentive plan should have received the highest share price paid for Caesars' common stock in connection with the merger -- $23.76. Instead, they received $21.85. According to the suit, even after Mr. Barr contacted Harrah's in June to alert it of the discrepancy, the company "refused to comply with the terms of the 1998 plan."

The suit revealed that at the time of the merger, Mr. Barr held options to purchase 2.15 million shares of Caesars common stock. At $21.85 a share, he would have been paid more than $47 million. The $1.91 discrepancy would give him an additional $4.1 million. The former CEO also stated that there could be hundreds of former Caesars employees who might be covered by the suit. The 1998 plan made 55 million shares of Caesars' stock available to full-time officers and employees, according to the suit. If all 55 million options were granted, Harrah's would owe other former Caesars employees more than $105 million.

HAWAII: ACLU Files Lawsuit For Abuse, Negligence at Youth Prison----------------------------------------------------------------The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action against the state of Hawaii, the Associated Press reports. The suit alleges that the state failed to protect inmates at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility from being abused, and for keeping the inmates in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.

In 2003, the ACLU released a report saying that young inmates were abused and harassed. The report resulted in the removal of the prison's two top administrators. The state attorney general's office also launched an investigation. In August, the U.S. Justice Department released its own critical report, saying the young inmates' constitutional and federal statutory rights were being violated and describing the Kailua facility as "existing in a state of chaos."

Sharon Agnew, executive director of the state Office of Youth Services, said then that aggressive changes had been made in response to the federal investigation, including a new detailed incident-reporting system, a new housing unit and the hiring of consultants and additional guards, AP reports.

The class-action lawsuit asks for a federal court-ordered expert to "design, implement and oversee policies and procedures" at the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Lois Perrin, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, told AP. "The state has been aware for over two years of a multitude of problems," she said. "The state should be embarrassed that this lawsuit is necessary."

According to the Company, the large rugs fail to meet the federal mandatory standard for flammability under the Flammable Fabrics Act and could ignite, presenting a risk of burn injuries. The smaller size rugs are missing labels identifying them as flammable.

The recall includes only beige and champagne leather shag rugs with Hellenic's name on the label. Large sizes include 5-feet by 8-feet and 8-feet by 11-feet and small-size rugs include 3-feet 5-inches by 5-feet 5-inches, 2-feet by 3-feet and 2-feet by 8-feet. A label on the rugs reads, "Hellenic Rug Imports, Inc."

Manufactured in India, the Rugs were sold by Internet and catalog retailers nationwide from September 2002 through October 2005 for between $50 and $600, depending on the size.

Remedy: Large Rugs - Consumers should stop using the rugs and contact the manufacturer to arrange for free replacement. Small Rugs - Consumers should keep these rugs away from sources of ignition and contact Hellenic Rug Imports to receive a label that complies with labeling requirements.

ILLINOIS: City Officials' Objection Results in Less Cash Payment ----------------------------------------------------------------The city of La Salle, Illinois will pay $31,000 less in a class action settlement regarding the constitutionality of telecommunication taxes from 1998 to 2002, The LaSalle News Tribune reports.

In a hearing last week, La Salle's Mayor, Art Washkowiak, the city's comptroller and attorney objected to a $36,000 settlement that the city owed in a suit that challenged nearly 400 municipalities, including La Salle, on the constitutionality of telecommunication taxes. The case was brought by telecommunications parties and taxpayers years ago. It included taxes on wireless and landlines.

At the recent hearing La Salle's comptroller reviewed the past five years of documents and reported that the city should owe around $2,000. Many other cities objected to the large settlements as well, but did not show up to the hearing.

The mayor told The LaSalle News Tribune, "I think our participation was very worth the effort we put into it."

La Salle City Council agreed Monday to pay a $2,026 settlement and more than $2,000 in legal fees - much less than the original settlement. Mayor Washkowiak told The LaSalle News Tribune the money would come from the city's utility tax fund. The mayor also said that some municipalities that did not appear in court could have to pay up to $100,000, based on population.

INTELLIGROUP INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against Intelligroup, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's former officers:

(1) Arjun Valluri,

(2) Nicholas Visco,

(3) Edward Carr and

(4) David Distel (&

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and that the defendants materially overstated financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices. The Class Period alleged is May 1, 2001 through September 24, 2004. The suits generally seek relief in the form of unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs, expenses and legal fees.

In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff. By agreement of the parties, lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on the second week of October 2005.

The suit is styled "GARCIA v. INTELLIGROUP, INC. et al., case no. 2:04-cv-04980-JCL-MF," filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Judge John C. Lifland. Representing the Company is Dennis J. Drasco and Kevin J. O'Connor, LUM, DANZIS, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, Email: ddrasco@lumlaw.com or koconnor@lumlaw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are:

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said he ordered the shutdown because the systems are vulnerable to hacker attacks. However, Interior officials then requested an administrative stay to temporarily suspend the shutdown, pending appeal.

Judge Lamberth originally granted American Indian plaintiffs a motion for a preliminary injunction to shut down any computers, networks, handheld computers and voice-over-IP equipment that access trust fund data. In essence the injunction, which the judge issued on October 20, prohibits Interior employees, contractors, tribes and other third parties from using those systems.

Though it is not known when or if a shutdown will occur, Interior spokesman John Wright told FCW.com, "When the court takes it up, they'll let us know what our status is." He also told FCW.com that depending on interpretations of the order the department could be forced to disconnect 5 percent to 10 percent of its computers. He adds that although this would not harm the general public, "it would cause significant harm to Indian [communities], given that we process a lot of data by way of computers."

The department's IT security has been the focus of a nine-year class action lawsuit that criticizes the department's oversight of Indian trust funds. Indian plaintiffs accused officials of failing to properly protect data.

With the appellate court's decision of postpone, the plaintiffs are expected to contest the delay. Bill McAllister, their spokesman, told FCW.com that their brief would point out that Judge Lamberth scrupulously followed the instructions of the court.

Mr. McAllister emphasizes, "He found the evidence overwhelming that the conditions were not safe in their computer systems" He added, "This is another attempt by the Justice and Interior departments to evade (their) responsibilities to" American Indians.

The suit is styled "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., case no. 96-1285 (RCL)," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616-0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov. Representing the plaintiffs are:

KRISPY KREME: NC Judge Asked to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. asked a federal judge in North Carolina to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it and its executives, which alleges that the company violated securities laws, The Winston-Salem Journal reports.

Seeking class action status on behalf of shareholders who bought Krispy Kreme stock between March 8, 2001, and April 18, 2005, the suit alleges that the company and its top executives issued false and misleading statements about the company's revenue and earnings forecasts. In addition, the shareholder suit alleges that officials knew that the company's sales were slowing long before it issued a profit warning in May 2004 that sent its shares tumbling. It also alleges that the company improperly recorded revenue and violated accounting rules.

In arguing for the suit's dismissal, Krispy Kreme stated in court papers "that predictions of future financial performance cannot be the basis for a securities fraud claim." Krispy Kreme also said that the plaintiffs "have failed to show any fraudulent intent behind Krispy Kreme's accounting errors."

Krispy Kreme also said in court papers that it has restated past earnings because of what it said are accounting errors, but pointed out, "The mere fact of a restatement, however, does not give rise to a strong inference of fraud." Furthermore, Krispy Kreme stated that it warned investors of potential business risks that could alter the company's performance and that shielded it from legal liability.

The company also discounted information from confidential witnesses that was included in a revised suit filed against the company saying, "Plaintiffs offer no credible contrary information from their confidential witnesses, all of whom worked in low-level positions at individual stores or franchises, and none of whom would be expected to know the overall corporate results or forecasts."

Attorneys for Scott Livengood, the former chief executive of Krispy Kreme and is one of the individual defendants in the case, criticized the suit in a court filing. They said, "This case follows an all-too-familiar pattern: a corporation announces its business prospects may not be as rosy as they once were, and plaintiffs immediately accuse the company, along with its officers and directors, of having intentionally lied to the public in the earlier, more positive announcements."

The first shareholder lawsuit against Krispy Kreme was filed in May 2004 and was followed by more than 12 others, which were consolidated into one action. It is unclear when a ruling on the motions will be made.

The class action affects more than 4,000 Tri-State customers of the Houston, Texas-based firm, which bought thousands of loans from Provident Bank. The suit claims that personal information from loan customers was stolen in August 2005, but customers were not notified until October.

METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE: $7.25M Settlement Proposed in Summit Case----------------------------------------------------------------Investors in Summit Securities, a failed Metropolitan Mortgage affiliate would get back up to $7.25 million in a proposed settlement that would also release most board members from legal liability, The Associated Press reports.

If approved by creditors, class action plaintiffs and federal bankruptcy and district court judges, Summit would pay the investors from an insurance pool that is used to pay legal costs for former Metropolitan Mortgage and Summit Securities officials. Under the agreement, the money would be split among a trust set up to recover and repay money to creditors in the bankruptcy case, and investors who filed a class action lawsuit against the company and its officials.

Metropolitan and its subsidiary Summit filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February. The collapse of the Metropolitan, which was once a $2.7 billion conglomerate of insurance companies and investment services, cost more than 10,000 investors some $450 million.

Included in the proposed settlement would be most former Summit Securities board members, who would be dropped as defendants in the fraud lawsuit. Former company President Tom Turner, who was indicted last month on seven felony counts of misleading auditors of the company, would be excluded though. Of special note, Metropolitan board members, along with executives and other key employees, are still named in lawsuits.

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek NY Stock Suit Certification---------------------------------------------------------------MidAmerican Energy Co. reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it and other firms in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the defendants have engaged in unlawful manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures and options contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) during the period of January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.

The Company is mentioned as a company that has engaged in wash trades on Enron Online (an electronic trading platform) that had the effect of distorting prices for gas trades on the NYMEX. The plaintiffs to the class action do not specify the amount of alleged damages.

The original complaint in this matter, styled "Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant, et al.," was filed on August 18, 2003 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York naming the Company. On October 1, 2003, a second complaint, styled "Roberto, E. Calle Gracey, et al. v. Reliant, et al.," was filed in the same court but did not name the Company. On November 14, 2003, a third complaint, styled "Dominick Viola (Viola), et al.," was filed in the same court and named the Company as a defendant. On December 5, 2003, the court entered Pretrial Order No. 1, which among other procedural matters, ordered the consolidation of the Cornerstone, Calle Gracey and Viola complaints and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this matter. On January 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed "In Re: Natural Gas Commodity Litigation," as the amended complaint reasserting their previous allegations.

On February 19, 2004, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and joined with several other defendants to file a joint Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a response on May 19, 2004, contesting both Motions to Dismiss. On September 24, 2004, the pending motions to dismiss were denied. On October 14, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add certain defendants' affiliates as defendants and reasserted their previous allegations. The Company and the other defendants filed their respective answers to the complaint on October 28, 2004. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class actions certification on January 25, 2005.

On September 6, 2005, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, which upon final approval by the court following notice to all class members, the Company will be dismissed from the lawsuit. The Company agreed to the settlement in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty associated with the ongoing litigation. If accepted by the court, the settlement will not have a material impact upon the Company.

NEW YORK: Firefighters Injured in 9/11 Attacks to Sue N.Y. City---------------------------------------------------------------New York firefighters hurt in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks are threatening to sue the city in to force it to put them back to work or retire them on disability, The New York Daily News reports.

Numerous firefighters have been assigned desk jobs -- too sick for active duty but too well for disability pensions -- under a rule that changed "after the fire department realized how many firefighters were affected" by the attacks, according to attorney Jeffrey Goldberg.

Mr. Goldberg told The New York Daily News that he was preparing a class action suit on behalf of 30 firefighters. He also said, "There's no logic to keep them on the payroll. I think there's a political agenda to protect the pension fund."

Before the terror attacks, the city's pension board generally granted disability to firefighters who flunked a breathing test. Now, however, they must undergo a pulmonary function test that the firefighters' union says does not measure the breathing problems most firefighters face.

A New York Law Department official told The New York Daily News that the pension board's "decisions were appropriate in these cases."

OHIO: City Files Suit V. Travel Web Sites Over Inadequate Taxes--------------------------------------------------------------- The northwest Ohio city of Findlay initiated a lawsuit against more than a dozen travel web sites that book hotel rooms, claiming that the sites don't pay enough in taxes, The Associated Press reports.

Filed in Hancock County Common Pleas Court, the suit claims that site operators charge their customers taxes based on retail room rates but pay the city based on lower wholesale rates and pocket the difference. It specifically names companies such as Priceline.com, Travelocity.com, Cheap Tickets Inc., Expedia Inc. and Orbitz Inc., which negotiate discount rates with hotels, then sell the rooms online. The suit also seeks class-action status, which would allow other Ohio cities and counties to join if Judge Joseph Niemeyer approves the request.

George Kentris, one of the lawyers representing the city about 45 miles south of Toledo, told The Associated Press that the amount Findlay has lost in bed taxes is not known. He explains, "We haven't put a figure on it yet, but some of these businesses have been in operation for 10 years." He adds, "The majority of hotel rooms these days are booked online through these companies."

"We believe there are a lot of tax districts around Ohio that are in a similar position as Findlay," Mr. Kentris told The Associated Press, adding that it could take three to five months for Judge Niemeyer to rule.

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on OK Suit Dismissal--------------------------------------------------------------The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal the dismissal of the securities class action filed against Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

The suit seeks unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the Company issued false and misleading financial information, primarily related to the method it used to account for commission advance receivables from sales associates.

On March 5, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the dismissal which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2002, the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class.

As of December 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been completed. On January 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the appeal and as of July 22, 2005, a decision was still pending.

The suit is styled "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities Litigation, case no. 5:01-cv-00182," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, under Judge Robin J. Cauthron. Representing the plaintiffs are Stuart W. Emmons and William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood, 120 N Robinson Ave, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, Fax: 405-239-2112, E-mail: swe@federmanlaw.com or wfederman@aol.com. Representing the Company are:

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Working To Settle Lawsuits For Membership Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. is working to settle multiple lawsuits filed against it, certain officers, employees, sales associates and other defendants in various Alabama and Mississippi state courts by current or former members seeking actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of contract, fraud and various other claims in connection with the sale of Memberships.

During 2004, there were at one time as many as 30 separate lawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in Alabama. As of October 22, 2005, as a result of dismissals, summary judgments, or settlements for nominal amounts, the Company is aware of approximately 1 lawsuit involving 4 plaintiffs in Alabama. As of October 22, 2005, the Company is aware of 7 separate lawsuits involving approximately 406 plaintiffs in multiple counties in Mississippi. Certain of the Mississippi lawsuits also name the Company's former provider attorney in Mississippi as a defendant.

In Mississippi, the Company filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of Mississippi in which it seeks to compel arbitration of the various Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and the terms of the Company's Membership agreements. One of the federal courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8 plaintiffs.

These cases are all in various stages of litigation, including trial settings in Mississippi in November and December 2005, and seek varying amounts of actual and punitive damages. The Company has tried three separate lawsuits in Mississippi. The first trial in Mississippi on these cases resulted in a unanimous jury verdict in the Company's favor, including other named defendants, on all claims on October 19, 2004, while the second and third trials in Mississippi resulted in insubstantial plaintiffs' verdicts on February 15, 2005 and May 9, 2005, respectively. On July 18, 2005 the Circuit Judge in the May 9, 2005 trial entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to reconsider the submission of the issue of punitive damages to the jury, and set the case for trial on that issue in November 2005. The Company is seeking appellate relief from the final judgment in that case and the recent order. On August 16, 2005 the Circuit Judge in the February 15, 2005 trial overturned the jury's finding of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support those claims and reduced the damages awarded by the jury to a total of $525 for four plaintiffs. Although the amount of Membership fees paid by the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases is $500,000 or less, certain of the cases seek damages of $90 million.

On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and certain officers in the District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and doing business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations relating to its Memberships and seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a "nationwide" class. The Pre-Paid defendants' preliminary motions in this case were denied, and on June 17, 2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to compel arbitration, finding that the trial court erred when it denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the valid Membership contracts, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion. On December 3, 2004, the Court ordered the plaintiffs to proceed with the arbitration. The ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable.

On March 1, 2002, Caroline Sandler, Robert Schweikert, SalCorrente, Richard Jarvis and Vincent Jefferson filed the suit, seeking unspecified damages filed on behalf of the Company's sales associates and alleges that the marketing plan offered by the Company constitutes a security under the Securities Act of 1933. The suit seeks remedies for failure to register the marketing plan as a security and for violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with representations alleged to have been made in connection with the marketing plan.

The complaint also alleges violations of the Oklahoma Securities Act, the Oklahoma Business Opportunities Sales Act, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and negligent supervision. This case is subject to the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act.

Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named plaintiffs and counsel and an amended complaint was filed in August 2002. The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and to strike the class action allegations on September 19, 2002, and discovery in the action was stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to dismiss. The claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Oklahoma Securities were dismissed without prejudice. The motion was denied as to the remaining claims. On September 8, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the class certification ruling, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for interlocutory appeal.

RADIAN GUARANTY: Court Affirms Commercial Nature of Transactions----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed its position regarding the commercial nature of mortgage insurance transactions, and that the order supports keeping the mortgage process fast and efficient for consumers, in the suit filed against Radian Guaranty Inc.

The ruling found that mortgage insurance transactions between mortgage lenders and mortgage insurers are not consumer credit actions and are not subject to the notice requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

"This court order is a big win for consumers," said Roy J. Kasmar, President and Chief Operating Officer of Radian. "Mortgage transactions are consumer transactions, and we at Radian work with our lender clients to help consumers by reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Requiring mortgage insurers to issue adverse action notices to borrowers would not only be inconsistent with the FCRA, it would also disrupt the critical lender-borrower relationship, making the mortgage process unnecessarily complex and confusing for consumers."

The ruling was issued in response to a class action lawsuit that claimed Radian failed to issue an adverse action notice to a customer of one of Radian's mortgage lending clients, when the customer's credit history disqualified them from receiving a lower mortgage insurance rate. Radian successfully argued that it does not take adverse action under the FCRA when it sells mortgage insurance to its mortgage lending clients, and that it does not enter into credit transactions with individual borrowers

The suit was filed by Whitney Whitfield and Celeste Whitfield and is seeking class action status on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were required to pay for private mortgage insurance provided by Radian Guaranty and whose loans allegedly were insured at more than Radian Guaranty's "best available rate," based upon credit information obtained by Radian Guaranty, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 31, 2004) reports.

The suit alleges that FCRA requires a notice to borrowers of such "adverse action" and that Radian Guaranty violated FCRA by failing to give such notice. The action seeks statutory damages, actual damages, or both, for the people in the class, and attorneys' fees, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 31, 2004) reports.

In addition it also alleges that the failure to give notice to borrowers in the circumstances alleged is a violation of state law applicable to sales practices and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for this alleged violation. The litigation is aimed at practices commonly followed in the mortgage insurance industry, and similar cases are pending against several other mortgage insurers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 31, 2004) reports.

The suit is styled, "Whitfield et al v. Radian Guaranty, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-00111-JS," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge juan R. Sanchez. Representing the Plaintiff/s are:

SEMPRA ENERGY: Gas Utilities Antitrust Suit Goes to Trial Soon--------------------------------------------------------------A massive lawsuit alleging that Sempra Energy, the owner of Southern California's two major gas utilities, conspired during a clandestine hotel meeting to limit supplies and drive up prices during the energy shortages of 2000 and 2001 is set to go to trial soon, The Associated Press reports.

The class action suit, which was originally filed in December 2000 against Sempra and its Southern California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric units alleged that they conspired with El Paso Natural Gas Corporation to prevent competition for cheaper and more plentiful Canadian natural gas. Additionally, the suit alleges that Sempra and its companies conspired to protect their respective market dominance over the supply and transportation of natural gas into and within California, reaping enormous profits at the expense of California consumers and businesses, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005) reports.

The plaintiffs stated that the alleged agreement happened in a clandestine meeting at a Phoenix hotel involving 11 senior SoCalGas, SDG&E and El Paso executives in September 1996, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005) reports.

Economists estimate that damages caused by excessive energy costs in 2000 and 2001 amount to more than $9 billion, an amount that would be tripled under California's antitrust law, the plaintiffs contend, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005) reports.

SILICON LABORATORIES: Revised Settlement Submitted To NY Court--------------------------------------------------------------Parties have submitted a revised settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against Silicon Laboratories, Inc., four of its officers individually and the three investment banking firms who served as representatives of the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering of common stock to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering did not disclose that the underwriters solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors, and the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the offering in exchange for a commitment from the customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices. The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.

A court order dated October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the Company's four officers who had been named individually. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases. Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Company's case.

The company has approved a settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against its underwriters. The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications consistent with its opinion. The Court ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs were required to submit a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims. The issuers and plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a revised settlement agreement consistent with the Court's opinion. The revised settlement agreement has been approved by all of the issuer defendants who are not in bankruptcy. The underwriter defendants will have an opportunity to object to the revised settlement agreement. There is no assurance that the Court willgrant final approval to the settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Silicon Laboratories, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District, styled "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al.; No. BC328961."

This purported class action was filed on February 17, 2005, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all persons, entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or services in the United States from defendants at any time on or after February 17, 2001. The suit named the Company and several of its Southern California affiliates as defendants and also sought to assert claims against a class of all entities located anywhere in the United States whose ultimate parent corporation has been the Company at any time on or after February 17, 2001.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants failed to disclose that the prices charged by defendants for certain goods and services exceeded what defendants paid to third parties for those same goods and services on the plaintiffs' behalf. Plaintiffs further alleged that this failure violated provisions of the Federal Trade Commission's "Funeral Rule" that require a funeral home to disclose, if true, that it marks up the price of certain items purchased from third parties on behalf of customers on a "cash advance" or "accommodation" basis. The plaintiffs alleged that by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants:

(1) breached contracts with the plaintiffs,

(2) were unjustly enriched,

(3) engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of a provision of California's Business and Professions Code, and

(4) engaged in a civil conspiracy among the defendants to breach plaintiffs' contracts and commit acts of unfair competition.

By order dated May 5, 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to similar actions against Service Corporation International (SCI) and Alderwoods Group, Inc. On August 18, 2005, the court sustained a demurrer in the SCI case, dismissing the conspiracy count, but allowing the plaintiffs to amend the remainder of the complaint. This ruling, by stipulation of the parties, applied equally to the suit filed against the Company.

In response, on August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the three cases filed amended complaints. SCI has filed a demurrer in its case, and the Company joined in that demurrer on October 6, 2005. As before, the ruling on this demurrer will apply equally to the suit against the Company.

STEWART ENTERPRISES: CA Court Orders Consumer Suits Consolidated----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated consumer class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. and other funeral homes, and ordered the transfer of the cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On May 2, 2005, a purported class action lawsuit entitled "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc, et al. v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co.," (FCA Case) was filed on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral home defendants. The suit alleges that the defendants acted jointly to fix and maintain prices on caskets and reduce competition from independent casket discounters in violation of the federal antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

Thereafter, five substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of California asserting claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. These five suits were transferred to the division in which the FCA Case was pending and consolidated with the FCA Case (collectively referred to as the "Consolidated Consumer Cases").

On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the Northern District of California entitled "Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co." (Pioneer Valley Case). The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims asserted in the Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only independent casket retailers. On August 15, 2005, the Court issued an order relating the Pioneer Valley Case to the Consolidated Cases, but it has not been consolidated with the Consolidated Consumer Cases for purposes of trial.

On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust and unfair competition claims. On September 9, 2005, the Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended and consolidated complaint that satisfies the objections raised in the motions to dismiss.

At the defendants' request, the Court also issued orders in late September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and the Pioneer Valley Case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred cases were assigned to different judges in the Southern District of Texas, but the Company believes they ultimately will be consolidated or related before a single judge.

A similar action captioned "Ralph Lee Fancher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., Aurora Casket Co., York Group, Inc., and Batesville Casket Co.," was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of consumers in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia who purchased caskets. The allegations of fact were essentially the same as those made in the FCA Case, but the plaintiff in this suit alleged that the defendants violated various state antitrust, consumer protection and/or unjust enrichment laws. The plaintiff in this purported class action withdrew his complaint on August 2, 2005, and re-filed a nearly identical complaint under Tennessee law and on behalf of onlyTennessee consumers in the Northern District of California on September 23, 2005, the same day that the Consolidated Consumer Cases were transferred to the Southern District of Texas. Accordingly, this case remains pending in the Northern District of California.

THOROUGHBRED INDUSTRIAL: Competitor Lodges Fraud Lawsuit in KY--------------------------------------------------------------Thoroughbred Industrial Cylinder Exchange and its parent company Scott-Gross Co. faces a class action filed by its competitor, alleging that the Company illegally obtained and refilled its air gas cylinders, the Associated Press reports.

Airgas-Mid America filed the suit in Warren Circuit Court in Kentucky, alleging that the Lexington company and others yet unknown illegally relabeled and sold Airgas-Mid America canisters after refilling them.

The Company got the cylinders through its exchange system, which allows customers to bring in empty air gas cylinders and trade for newly refilled ones at retail locations like Tractor Supply Company and Rural King, both of which were also named as defendants in the lawsuit. Other retailers participating in the Thoroughbred exchange program, which have yet to be identified, are included in the list of defendants as "John Does." The suit was filed on behalf of a purported 700 plaintiffs - all of whom have yet to be identified, but are companies like Airgas-Mid America with similar offerings.

The suit alleges the Company and Scott-Gross knew what they were doing was illegal and tried to disguise markings from other companies on the cylinders. "(Airgas-Mid America) had suspicions about it for a long time, but only obtained concrete evidence of it in the last few weeks," Mike Owsley, one of the company's attorneys in Bowling Green, told AP.

Companies like Airgas-Mid America typically own the cylinders they distribute, which hold at least 100 cubic feet of oxygen, and rent the cylinders to customers. Representatives of Thoroughbred were not available for comment, AP reports.

TRINITY HEALTH: MI Judge Dismisses Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court in Detroit, Michigan dismissed a class action lawsuit filed last year against Novi-based Trinity Health, The Crain's Detroit Business reports.

The suit alleged that uninsured patients were charged excessive fees and the hospitals were not providing sufficient charity service to earn their tax-exempt status. The suit was part of a wave of lawsuits against about 400 nonprofit hospitals nationwide. The cases were pushed nationally by Richard Scruggs, the Mississippi attorney who won a $205 billion settlement against the major tobacco companies in 1998, and locally by former state Attorney General Frank Kelley.

In Michigan, Mr. Kelley sued Trinity and Royal Oak-based William Beaumont Hospitals. The suit against Beaumont was dismissed in June, a decision that Mr. Kelley has since appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Dane Hale, senior vice president and general counsel for Trinity Health said in a statement regarding the dismissal, "We are very pleased with the federal court's decision."

Mr. Kelley is now in private practice at Lansing-based law and political lobbying firm Kelley Cawthorne P.L.L.C.

U.S. CHAMBER: To Release Securities Class Action Study at Meet--------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform will release a securities class action study, The Economic Reality of Securities Class Action Litigation, at its 6th Annual Legal Reform Summit on October 26 in Washington, DC.

The study reveals that the securities class action system is out of kilter, providing the least relief to individual investors and overcompensating institutional investors.

During the summit, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) will deliver a keynote address on the role of Congress in reforming our civil justice system, and the attorneys general of Rhode Island and Kansas will speak on the appropriate role of state attorneys general. A complete agenda is available online at http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org.

Featured Speakers at the summit include:

(1) Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX);

(2) Thomas J. Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce;

(3) Billy Tauzin, President and CEO, PhRMA;

(4) Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island Attorney General;

(5) Phill Kline, Kansas Attorney General; and

(5) U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.

For more details, call 202-463-5682 or E-mail: press@uschamber.com.

New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERIGROUP CORPORATION: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Stock Suit in VA--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of Amerigroup Corporation ("Amerigroup" or the "Company") (NYSE:AGP) securities between April 27, 2005 and September 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning Amerigroup's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Amerigroup failed to account for medical costs, incurred but not reported, in the first and second quarters of 2005. As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, allowing certain Company insiders to sell 170,712 shares of their Amerigroup stock for proceeds of $6.1 million. On September 28, 2005, however, the Company disclosed that it expected to report a third quarter 2005 loss of $0.06 to $0.08 per diluted share, as compared to the then-current consensus earnings estimate of $0.48 per diluted share and that, as a result, the Company would not meet its 2005 annual earnings guidance. On this news, Amerigroup's stock fell $14.70 per share from $33.91 per share to $19.81 per share on extremely heavy volume.

DANA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Dana Corporation (NYSE: DCN) between March 23, 2005 to September 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that by the beginning of the Class Period, Dana's profits were being negatively impacted by an increase in the price of raw materials - steel, in particular - which was disconcerting to investors. In order to assure the market that the Company's business was performing according to plan, and would continue to perform well even if steel prices did not decline materially, defendants artificially inflated Dana's net income through improper accounting and, in addition, issued earnings guidance that lacked any reasonable basis given the Company's true performance and prospects, which were known to defendants but not the investing public. In particular, defendants' Class Period representations regarding Dana's historical financial performance and condition and its expected 2005 earnings were materially false and misleading because:

(1) the Company had improperly accounted for price increases, which materially artificially inflated its second quarter of 2005 income;

(2) the Individual Defendants' assurances, made in written certifications filed with the SEC, that the second quarter Form 10-Q was free from misstatements and fairly presented the Company's financial condition and results of operations was patently false;

(3) the Company's apparent success was the result of improper accounting, did not reflect the reality of its business and deceived investors; and

(4) in light of these facts, which were known to defendants, defendants' guidance lacked any rational basis and could not be met without a material drop in raw material prices, contrary to defendants' repeated assurances to the contrary.

On September 15, 2005, before the open of ordinary trading, Dana issued a press release announcing that it would likely restate second quarter 2005 financial results and that it had dramatically lowered its 2005 earnings guidance, to $0.60 to $0.70 per share from $1.30 to $1.45, a more than 100% reduction. Because of the expected earnings shortfall, the Company may have to write down its U.S. deferred tax assets and may be in violation of covenants contained in a loan agreement, according to the press release. A main reason given for the halving of the 2005 guidance was high steel costs, a factor that defendants repeatedly assured the market was already considered, and accounted for, in the guidance.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Dana stock fell dramatically, from $12.78 per share on September 14, 2005 to $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a one-day drop of 22.8% on unusually heavy trading volume.

HILB ROGAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Amended Securities Suit in VA----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. (NYSE:HRH) ("HRH" or the "Company") between August 11, 2000 and May 26, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against HRH and Andrew L. Rogal, Martin L. Vaughn III, Carolyn Jones, and Robert B. Lockhart ("Defendants").

Labaton Sucharow is engaged in an investigation into the Company's national and local-level contingent and override commission agreements. The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's growth and growth potential, while failing to disclose:

(1) it had entered into secret agreements to limit competition by steering clients to select insurers in return for substantial contingent and/or override commissions;

(2) that the amount contingent and override commissions HRH received constituted a material portion of its net income during the Class Period;

(3) that the growing amount of contingent and/or override commissions went straight to the Company's bottom line, and was a material reason for the Company's reported growth in earnings;

(4) its earnings were overstated because it failed to establish a reserve for foreseeable losses associated with public revelation of its illicit business practices;

(5) it faced the material risk that a significant portion of its revenues might be discontinued, and that it would be forced to disgorge all or parts of the commissions to customers which it had improperly obtained during the Class Period;

(6) it faced the material risk that it could lose customers, reputation, and goodwill upon the disclosure of its business practices; and

(7) it faced the material risk that it could be subject to substantial legal costs, fines, penalties, claims for restitution, and damages as a result of its business practices.

On October 14, 2004, the New York Attorney General's Office disclosed its investigation into HRH competitor Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ("Marsh"), relating to the impropriety of industry practices surrounding contingent commissions. Because the October 14, 2004 news on Marsh implicated other insurance brokers and carriers and addressed the issue of contingent commissions generally in the insurance industry, the price of HRH stock fell 9.5% on this news, on heavy trading volume. But HRH falsely maintained that it was not engaged in practices comparable to Marsh's. In a conference call on October 27, 2004, Defendant Vaughan stated that HRH's business practices were distinct from those of Marsh, and that HRH had no special arrangements with insurance carriers and was not involved in bid-rigging. On February 2, 2005, however, the Company reported lower-than-expected financial results due, in part, to decreased contingent and/or override commissions and increased legal compliance and claims expenses. The price of HRH stock dropped 7.2% on this news, on heavy trading volume.

Finally, on May 26, 2005, the Company disclosed it had received improper payments in connection with the placement of insurance policies, and had terminated Defendant Lockhart as a result. On this news, the price of HRH stock fell 11% on heavy trading volume, causing the class significant damages. The Company has since been under investigation by the states of Florida, Massachusetts, California, North Carolina, New York and Connecticut, and at least another 10 states are conducting inquiries into the Company in connection with the practices described in the complaint, including fraud on customers and bid-manipulation.

REFCO INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, initiated a securities fraud lawsuit against Refco, Inc. ("Refco") (NYSE: "RFX") and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Refco on the open market during the period August 11, 2005 through October 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"); or purchased Refco common stock issued and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement/Prospectus dated August 10, 2005 and declared effective by the SEC on or around August 11, 2005. The action was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Refco to issue a Registration Statement/Prospectus, touting the Company's exceptionally high derivative trading volume and strong financial statements. However, unbeknownst to the market, Refco hid from its investors the Company's true financial condition. The Company materially misstated its accounts receivables by hiding $430 million in bad debt unlikely to be repaid. Using financial sleight of hand, the Company made it appear that a legitimate business customer, a hedge-fund company called Liberty Corner, owed Refco $430 million, when in fact, a company controlled by Refco's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board owed the Company the $430 million. This was accomplished by making loans to Liberty Corner, which turned around and lent the money to an entity controlled by Refco's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.

On October 10, 2005, only two months after the Company's initial public offering, the Company announced that its financial statements included in its Registration Statement/Prospectus could no longer be relied on because of the previously undisclosed $430 million related party receivable. The Company also stated that it would delay the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending August 31, 2005. Furthermore, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer, Chairman, and controlling shareholder, Phillip R. Bennet, was taking a leave of absence at the request of Refco's Board of Directors.

On this news, Refco's share price plummeted 45% to $15.60 from the prior days closing of $28.56.

On October 12, 2005, Refco's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board was arrested and charged with securities fraud by the U.S. Attorney's Office for paying Liberty Corner to help him hide the money he owed Refco. In addition, on October 13, 2005, Refco announced it would halt activities at its non-regulated Capital Markets because its liquidity was no longer sufficient to continue operations. After these announcements, Refco's share price plummeted again, falling to a close of $7.90 on October 13, 2005.

Class members who desire to be appointed a lead plaintiff in this action must file a motion with the Court no later than December 12, 2005. Class members who are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff in this action, or other persons who have questions or information regarding the prosecution of this action, are urged to call or write:

TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files KY Suit --------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of all securities purchasers of Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. (NYSE: TPX) ("Tempur-Pedic" or the "Company") between April 22, 2005 and September 19, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Tempur-Pedic, Dale E. Williams, Robert B. Trussell, JR., H. Thomas Bryant and P. Andrews Mclane with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(2) that the Company faced increased competition in its niche sector in the form of cheaper offerings from Sealy, Simmons Bedding, and Serta International; and

(3) that as a consequence of the foregoing defendants' encouraging statements about Tempur-Pedic's business prospects and market position lacked in any reasonable basis.

On September 19, 2005, Tempur-Pedic lowered its financial guidance for fiscal 2005. On this news, shares of Tempur-Pedic common stock fell $4.68 per share, or 28.5 percent, on September 19, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.